From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: About the 'minibuffer' frame parameter Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:54:34 +0300 Message-ID: <8337mchdxx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <579E3F9E.8020200@gmx.at> <83h9azl4s1.fsf@gnu.org> <57A4C0DE.3060506@gmx.at> <837fbvkofs.fsf@gnu.org> <57A5AF03.30807@gmx.at> <8360rck7kd.fsf@gnu.org> <57A84256.8030706@gmx.at> <83popji89w.fsf@gnu.org> <57A9940B.6030005@gmx.at> <8337mehu5u.fsf@gnu.org> <57A9FFDE.10106@gmx.at> <83pophhq1a.fsf@gnu.org> <57AA141C.5010701@gmx.at> <83mvklhluf.fsf@gnu.org> <57AB1AF1.2010205@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1470841129 21855 195.159.176.226 (10 Aug 2016 14:58:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 10 16:58:45 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bXUxw-0005Tl-SK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:58:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42117 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXUxt-0004rV-OL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:58:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35741) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXUuC-0001do-N6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:54:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXUu8-0006ZH-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:54:52 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41577) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXUu8-0006Z6-Dz; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:54:48 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4053 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bXUu6-0002t2-Ix; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:54:47 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:23:55 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206541 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:23:55 -0400 > > >>> But then we can't discriminate minibuffer-less from normal frames by > >>> looking at the parameter value only. > >> We can look at what window-frame returns for that window, can't we? > > Tediously so, yes. > > For minibuffer-free frames, we could return the *frame* whose minibuffer > we use. Why? The frame parameter's value is a window, so the most natural value would be the window used for the minibuffer. Given the window, accessing its frame, if it's needed, is trivial.